[Cap'n Wannabe]

Just had another discussion with my mate..

Take the Extra 300. It carries 40 litres (38 usable) in the acro tank, and 120 litres in the wing tanks.

Section 2.4.1 in the POH reads:

Fuel

Minimum grade aviation gasoline : 100/100LL; for alternate fuel grades see latest revision of LYC S.I. No. 1070
Total fuel capacity 160 litres (42.3 US gallons)
Useable fuel capacity 158 litres (41.7 US gallons)
For acrobatic flight wing tanks must be empty
Total fuel capacity for acrobatic flight 40 litres (10.6 US gallons) in acro tank
Useable fuel capacity for acrobatic flight 38 litres (10.04 US gallons) in acro tank

Bolding mine..

So if you were to fly a competition, or even practice, you'd start with 40 litres on board.

Fuel consumption on a standard day at 65% power is around 50 litres/hour (from a quick glance at the chart..)

Therefore, a MAYDAY would be required before you even start....at least, that's my understanding..

[P1_aka_P1]

Order – Gentlemen – please.

Had a ‘chat’ with Wannabe. Turns out that ‘his mate’ actually does operate quite legally within even the new part 91. Fuel from ‘mains’ is used until exhausted, timed neatly to coincide with the start of his 5 or 6 minute sortie – which leaves about 40 minutes on board to complete the flight very ‘legally’.

Part 91 remains as big a crock of technically incorrect shite as it always was – just more pages to plough through, safety at work eh? With or without the frills  - don’t do the crime if you can’t justify the time.

No penalty for CW – this time – he posted without thinking it through. Let he who is without sin chuck the first brick – (Sellah - applicable under section 36-24-36 of ‘the AP act’)…

Chuss....

[Peetwo]

Latest on the flat earth society & Part 91 -

Cribbed from the UP: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10119954

LeadSled - Folks,

The drafting of Part 91 (and so much other aviation regulation) in the "negative" guarantees confusion and the creation of "inadvertent criminals".

There is no good reason for this, other than CASA choice, you take a topic, write a regulation to ban it, then follow with a string of exception, usually with multiple cross references to grossly increase likelihood of misunderstanding.

If the same "regulation" was written in the positive, what you can do, it would be far more straightforward to understand.

Then we get to the poor quality of the actual drafting, and this leaves so many avenues to argue what you can actually do.

Tootle pip!!

---

andrewr - Some of the rules seem a bit overdone.

91.275 Aircraft to be flown under VFR or IFR
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
at any time during the flight, the aircraft is not flown under the VFR or IFR.
(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes
subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

I don't even know how to contravene that rule.

91.445 Additional right of way rules
Aircraft with right of way to maintain heading and speed
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
during the flight:
(a) there is a risk of collision with another aircraft; and
(b) the aircraft has right of way over the other aircraft (in accordance with
regulation 91.440); and
© the aircraft’s heading and speed is not maintained until there is no longer a
risk of collision.

Really? I fly a slower aircraft, quite often I will modify heading and/or speed to allow a faster aircraft to go in front even if I have right of way. Is that forbidden?

(1) A person who fuels an aircraft contravenes this subregulation if a requirement
mentioned in subregulation (2) is not met.
(2) The requirements are the following:
(a) at all times during the fuelling, at least 2 fire extinguishers:
(i) must be on the fuelling equipment or positioned at a distance of not
less than 6 m and not more than 15 m from the fuelling point; and
(ii) must be readily available for use by the person;
(b) each fire extinguisher:
(i) must be of a type and capacity suitable for extinguishing fuel and
electrical fires;

At least 2 fire extinguishers between 6 and 15 metres from the aircraft? Anyone know what capacity is considered suitable for extinguishing fuel fires?

I can see why you would set standards for someone who provides refueling facilities, and why you might have rules to protect bystanders etc. but if you set your aircraft on fire while refueling and the closest extinguisher is 25m away surely it's your problem? Do we need a 50 penalty unit offence?

---

Lead Balloon - What a God-awful mess. The machine is broken.

I’d not usually look at any of the dross trotted out as draft aviation “safety” regulations these days, but andrewr’s cut and paste had me shaking my head in disbelief.

91.275? What do I say? Might as well make it an offence if you do not fly an aircraft during the hours of daylight or darkness. Gotta be at least 10 years in gaol for that.

Right of way rules? I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times they’ve made an operational difference in over 30 years of flying. I do trust that the millions spent on reproducing the COLREGS in domestic law, again, will be worth it.

Fire extinguishers and refuelling? I’ve looked at the draft and, as far as I can tell, the rule quoted by andrewr applies to all Australian aircraft (as defined) in Australian territory. I’m disturbed to note that my dangerous behaviour has included never having had 2 fire extinguishers positioned anywhere during refuelling. And it won’t in the future. I’m disappointed to have been forced into a life of crime.

I’ve seen reference to simulating engine failures and “shut down”. I don’t have the energy.

To quote the Spodman once again: May Jesus pee in bucket, what are these wombats on?

 

MTF? - Hmm...no doubt - P2

[Kharon]

Fire – (Somebody please).

There is a very large dollop of purblind stupidity, of the type unique to CASA contained within the Part 91 paragraphs posted  above. If you ever wanted to identify, with precision, a definitive example of why CASA should not be allowed anywhere near the regulations; this one will serve you very well indeed.

Lets take a short look at what the ‘Reg’ does not mention in a simple operation conducted hundreds of times a day. For simplicity lets use a Cessna 172 at a country airstrip; pulled in to top up the tanks, stretch the legs etc. The aircraft pulls up at the bowser, the passengers toddle off to the bushes, and Pete the pilot gets set up to load fuel. What is the first thing he needs? We may assume the brakes are off and there’s a chock under a convenient wheel, so the aircraft may be pushed quickly and easily out of any spilled fuel without starting the engine.



The second and probably the most important is the attachment of an ‘earth’ or ground wire. Ever get one those ‘static electricity’ shocks when you touch something – well an aircraft can and usually does carry quite a charge after flight; a properly attached ground wire discharges any built up static quite safely back to mother Earth; preventing any chance of a spark igniting vapour. It is a jolly good idea, yet there is no 50 penalty point for failing to attach the wire; thus it remains quite legal not to do so. But no matter – we have the heroic ‘fire extinguishers', close at hand.

(i) must be of a type and capacity suitable for extinguishing fuel and electrical fires;

What, exactly, is an electrical fire? Electricity don’t burn – so we enter the realms of supposition where the cause (or seat) of the fire is electrical; first and foremost in this event we must turn off the electrical power; then we may address the burning material which has actually caught fire. Now then, at a fuel bowser what kind of material do you imagine would be ‘on fire’ – there ain’t much around to burn – except petrol. Which leads us to ‘fuel fed’ fires.

If old Pete has not ‘earthed’ the aircraft and is up on the step ladder with the fuel cap open and the fuel pumping in and there is a static discharge – what do you imagine will happen – if its not his lucky day – WHUMPA is what and a crispy critter to remove from the charred remains of the aircraft the result.

Lets say its still not Pete’s lucky day and there is a small ‘weep’ or wee leak at the pump and there is a ‘spark’ what do you reckon comes next – Uhm – WHUMPA perhaps?

WHUMPA is the noise made when petrol vapours ignite. So we must use a little imagination to identify exactly what manner of fire the CASA genius who penned this twaddle was raving about. We need a recognizable ‘fire and smoke’ situation which Pete can actually see; so upon spotting the fire Pete climbs down the step ladder, walks the 15 meters to the extinguisher, unhooks the unit (not chained to prevent theft), ambles back to the fire and calmly puts the beast out.

Bollocks – fire near a petrol pump – if Pete survived a petrol fuelled fire ignition, he’d be doing 30 knots as he went past the carefully positioned fire extinguishers, screaming for the fire brigade who will stand back (a long way) until it is safe to ‘mop up’; which is most sensible – IMO.

But if your extinguishers are not more than 15 meters and not less than six meters, why you're legally as safe as houses, which is always nice to know. So carry a tape measure and if those extinguishers do not meet the exacting CASA positioning standards after your careful measuring; move those errant things to their correct position. There now all legal, safe and tidy; don’t you just love the CASA safety methodology.

Best load of Bollocks of the year candidate, in a very competitive field. Fuel pump standards (not CASA responsibility) and educated airmanship (not CASA responsibility) all yours for about AUD $100, 000 per page.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Meanwhile in another hemisphere -

Via AvWeb...

Guest Blog: Europe Leads In Simplifying Regulation
 
By Jason Baker | April 23, 2018

Related Articles

• GA Response Derails ATC Amendment
  
• Concept Engine Combines Piston and Turbofan Engines
  
• Advocates Say Last-Minute Bill Change Threatens ATC
  
• EAA AirVenture Set For July 23-29
  

The Aero Expo in Friedrichshafen promotes itself as the pulse-meter of the European GA market and that often doesn't come across in a factually balanced news release. By American standards, Aero is not a huge show, but it’s a busy one and a target-rich environment for new stuff.

Yes, there was a clear dominance of electronics, electric propulsion systems and upgraded technology. I suppose it’s fair to say knowledge of all the gewgaws is required in order to remain eye to eye with a fellow aviator. That's all fine and dandy, but there’s a lot more going on here in Europe than is apparent from just wandering the stands.

The big surprise was attending the news conference EASA put on and paying close attention to just how significantly this agency has changed itself over the last five to six years. I left the conference with a somewhat spooked feeling, because so much collaboration and exchange and such open words from an aviation regulatory body feel almost unreal. In fact, after listening for the first 15 minutes of the two-hour conference, I started secretly looking around for some sort of hidden camera. Clearly, at any moment, we would be coughing and trying to wipe the dust off our shirts when the show would end and yet another 1900-page rule book would crash to the table.

Instead, I learned that a whole team at EASA spent a lot of time condensing the previous 1900-page rulebook down to a lot less, focusing on significance and intended purpose. The question they asked was: "How many pages of rules and regulations does one have to read or thumb through to arrive at something relevant that is easy to understand and doesn't require an attorney’s interpretation to comply with?"
 
With some of us munching away on the catered items and refreshments provided, I wondered if we would have a chance in the U.S. to see similar sentiments from our own FAA. EASA tells me it’s working hand in hand with the FAA on relaxing the system from its at-times incredibly constipated bureaucracy. Yet no one at EASA said a negative word about the FAA being behind the airplane on the "Roadmap For General Aviation."

EASA's presence and effort appeared personable and authentic and it was definitely clear that the agency is listening to manufacturers, associations, pilot groups and proposals from outside and within the European aviation universe. While one has to wonder just how much of this behavior will rub off on our friends in Washington, let the following perceptions sink in:

EASA has recognized that it has lacked the insight into the field to sensibly regulate general aviation while at the same time effectively evaluating and mitigating risk and promoting a safety culture among all players. Recognizing fault is the first step to getting better, right? This monumental task requires stakeholders and regulators alike to sit around the table and discuss things and to actually listen actively.

One catalyst here is the unmanned aircraft industry, the rapid implementation of which has shaken regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. Integrating a rapidly growing drone industry is a challenge, together with the constantly expanding possibilities of electronics, VTOL technology, octa-copters, airspace restrictions, environmental concerns and a generally easily entertained but hard-to-reach and rapidly aging audience. All of it requires collaboration and open minds.

EASA has gotten the memo that raising the regulatory finger and throwing the dusty old rulebook at its industry isn't a path to success. Once the market has been regulated or taxed to death, their jobs become obsolete, too.

I’m not saying that all wishes are fulfilled or that none of our wants are pink or floating around on fluffy clouds over here. Far from it. Instead, I would encourage conversations about how the FAA can be convinced that things must be simplified and pronto.

To be fair, the FAA is moving in the right direction, as evidenced by its cooperative attitude toward installation of non-certified avionics in certified airplanes. That’s a start.

But even though the U.S. remains the world aviation mecca, it’s the Europeans who are showing us how a regulatory agency can transform itself and actually be a catalyst to market growth instead of a hindrance. Who would have ever thought this would happen?  

1900 pages? - Jesus wept, most people in industry here would be happy to have a 1900 rulebook...

From post: Red tape embuggerance continues unabated at Aviation House

Lead Balloon:


Thorn bird: Pages of regulations (1988 + 1998) plus civil aviation orders plus manuals of standards plus determinations, permissions, approvals and exemptions?

My estimate, based on a page count of the more substantial bits of the dog’s breakfast: Around 30,000 pages and growing.

I doubt whether anyone could reasonably be confident of knowing and understanding the entirety of the current Australian civil aviation regulatory regime. I would presume any claimant of that knowledge and understanding to be a psychopath or insane.

---

"...total of ALL material of a legislative or associated nature for Part 61 alone is now put at 6000+ pages..."

 
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Meanwhile in another hemisphere - Part II

Via @FAASafetyBrief on twitter:

FAA Safety Briefing‏
@FAASafetyBrief

We recently reduced/relieved existing regulatory burdens & costs on the general aviation (GA) community including #pilots, flight schools, and part 135 operators. Here are brief descriptions for each of the 13 provisions with the scheduled effective dates: https://adobe.ly/2oLPzTL 

---

--by FAA Safety Briefing Magazine

On June 27, 2018, the FAA published a final rule with provisions that will reduce or relieve existing regulatory burdens and costs on the general aviation (GA) community including pilots, flight schools, and part 135 operators. Many of these rule changes resulted from GA community recommendations including petitions for rulemaking, industry/agency meetings, and requests for legal interpretation. Here are brief descriptions for each of the 13 provisions; please note the scheduled effective dates for each. To view the complete final rule, click here (PDF download) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-06-...-12800.pdf

Meanwhile in Aviation's Dunceunda Land: 

From ASAP minutes: 1) https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/as...march-2018

2) https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/as...ember-2017

3) https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/av...ember-2017

2017‐1/1 - CASA to consider updating and re-issuing the guiding principles for development and implementation of safety regulations to place a stronger emphasis on: risk; simplicity & clarity, approach to harmonisation and timeliness.

2017-1/4 - CASA to consider regular communications about the status of regulations being developed and priorities being worked on.

Hmm...I guess the CASA Iron Ring have considered and decided that it is not in their self-interest/self-preservation to change their overly prescriptive, strict liability, Big R-regulator methodology for the writing of regulations; nor is it apparently in their interest to reduce industry regulatory burden by harmonising our aviation rule-set with the rest of the world...  


MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

My tweet:-

“CASA’s ASAP committee March minutes-no mention of medical reform mooted Nov17 ???? Obvious reading tech working groups (Mar minutes) CASA is incapable and way past the practical limits of reg complexity. Go to FARs and overcome this wasteful farce.”

I have to take my hat off in admiration for the volunteers on the Technical Working Groups (TWG) who are sacrificing their living time, working time and family time, on the alter of the great CASA god of Government Total Control. What a joke, CASA’s drafting people can’t spell or write grammatically, let alone understand how things happen in the real world of flying. Reading the TWG minutes its obvious that many rules are tripping over each other because they are inconsistent, convoluted and prescriptive beyond practicality.

I read the Nov 17 ASAP minutes and CASA was going to look at the planning for implementation of medical reform. Mar 18 minutes, not even a mention of that subject. Looking at the composition of the ASAP members I suppose they don’t really care about this issue. I’d love to know what has happened to this reform, has Mr. Carmody actually caused any worthwhile medical reform?

[Peetwo]

Real world vs Fort Fumble fantasy land - 

The following is cribbed off social media, courtesy of Ben Wyndham AOPA Director and owner/operator of Airspeed Aviation :

Ben Wyndham

CASA's new Parts 119/121/135 Is going to destroy the small business sector of the Aviation industry. The Charter sector services all the small towns the big airlines don't.
Grab the latest issue of Australian Flying magazine for our view on new legislation delivering a massive increase in compliance costs that will wipe out a $1bn industry, decimate rural health and other public  services, all for zero improvement in safety.

IMO in one page BW nails down the real regulatory issues currently embuggering the small to medium size Charter and low capacity RPT operators...

Also note that on BW's LinkedIn page that there was an excellent comment, from another industry expert in his field, one Dan Parsons:

Dan Parsons - Airport Operations, Safety & Regulations Nerd

Hi Ben,

I can see in the article you have some concerns regarding the impact on Part 139 on small charter operators. Under the existing rules, there are obligations on aerodromes based on aircraft seating capacity regardless of whether RPT or charter. Under the current proposed amendments, CASA seems to moving away from treating RPT and Charter as the same thing. It looks to me like charter-only (eg mining) aerodromes in the future will be allowed to operate any sized aircraft with no specific aerodrome regulations.

I have to admit that I am probably on the other side of this argument to you (the aerodrome safety argument; not the general regulatory argument). I see distinctions between the charter and RPT, on safety grounds, as erroneous.

And I also don't see the obligations on the aerodrome operator (not the aircraft operator) as difficult. You just need someone on the ground to check the runway and surrounds before you land. CASA has never mandated a training standard or a syllabus or set licensing standards for this task. It just needs to meet the requirements of the aerodrome.

Anyway, as you continue to do the best for your sector, if you need any help on the 139 stuff, send me a message.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan of course once did a stint for the Big R-regulator CASA and therefore has a unique insight of how the aviation safety bureaucracy works...  

Hmm...wonder what Dan's take is on the bollocks HVH led ATSB YMEN DFO topcover report...   Ref: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-10-...ml#pid9374

Speaking of airports and aviation safety I note that yesterday afternoon both CASA and the Department's Airports & Aviation division were knocked off early by the committee?? 

However, in the context of airports and aviation safety, there was an interesting passage of 'no bullshit' inquisition by Senator Gallacher pointedly directed towards Harfwit in the brief half hour Airservices session...  

Here it is studiously recreated in pictures....  

Possibly misleading the Senate? - now where have I heard that before??   

Hint: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-142...ml#pid9309

Luv your work Senator Gallacher, the choc frog is in the mail...  

Shame of course that even if the Harfwit is proven to have mislead the Senate, the worst that he'll cop is being flogged by a soggy wet lettuce from the APH cafeteria...  


MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

CAsA CAsA CAsA.... can we add AMS to the list of industry killers please?

Alhough our industry’s focus is on safety, and we are seeing in great clarity the evidence of ‘destruction by regulation’, I am puzzled as to why there is little being said about the other big ‘R’ Regulator - AMS (formerly OTS)? These idiots are also out of control and are making it harder to operate and gain airside access and run a business. The introduction of body scanners to regional airports is to be completed by December 2019. More ludicrous costs added to the industry by way of airports installing upgraded equipment, staff training, additional staff being required, more compliance obligations to meet more regulations and so the list goes on.

But wait, there is more. Now the AMS are warning industry that they will be introducing the stupid LAGs rule for Domestic airports including regionals! More SOP’s, more security pressure, more delays, more costs to a struggling industry.
I can’t wait to see the airlines counting up the security delays due to these unworkable regulations, particularly once oil hits $100 per barrel and half their fuel isn’t hedged. Every minute of delay time will cost the Rat and the struggling VA shitloads.

Of course, pen pushing bureaucrats living in their Can’tberra silo’s and bunkers in a fantasy world would never contemplate such a flow-down effect would they?

Effing world gone mad. Two Regulators shitting on our industry and our ability to feed our families or create a future for them.

Tick Tock

[Peetwo]

Real world vs Fort Fumble fantasy land - 

The following is cribbed off social media, courtesy of Ben Wyndham AOPA Director and owner/operator of Airspeed Aviation :

Ben Wyndham

CASA's new Parts 119/121/135 Is going to destroy the small business sector of the Aviation industry. The Charter sector services all the small towns the big airlines don't.
Grab the latest issue of Australian Flying magazine for our view on new legislation delivering a massive increase in compliance costs that will wipe out a $1bn industry, decimate rural health and other public  services, all for zero improvement in safety.

IMO in one page BW nails down the real regulatory issues currently embuggering the small to medium size Charter and low capacity RPT operators...

Also note that on BW's LinkedIn page that there was an excellent comment, from another industry expert in his field, one Dan Parsons:

Dan Parsons - Airport Operations, Safety & Regulations Nerd

Hi Ben,

I can see in the article you have some concerns regarding the impact on Part 139 on small charter operators. Under the existing rules, there are obligations on aerodromes based on aircraft seating capacity regardless of whether RPT or charter. Under the current proposed amendments, CASA seems to moving away from treating RPT and Charter as the same thing. It looks to me like charter-only (eg mining) aerodromes in the future will be allowed to operate any sized aircraft with no specific aerodrome regulations.

I have to admit that I am probably on the other side of this argument to you (the aerodrome safety argument; not the general regulatory argument). I see distinctions between the charter and RPT, on safety grounds, as erroneous.

And I also don't see the obligations on the aerodrome operator (not the aircraft operator) as difficult. You just need someone on the ground to check the runway and surrounds before you land. CASA has never mandated a training standard or a syllabus or set licensing standards for this task. It just needs to meet the requirements of the aerodrome.

Anyway, as you continue to do the best for your sector, if you need any help on the 139 stuff, send me a message.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan of course once did a stint for the Big R-regulator CASA and therefore has a unique insight of how the aviation safety bureaucracy works...  

Hmm...wonder what Dan's take is on the bollocks HVH led ATSB YMEN DFO topcover report...   Ref: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-10-...ml#pid9374

Speaking of airports and aviation safety I note that yesterday afternoon both CASA and the Department's Airports & Aviation division were knocked off early by the committee?? 

However, in the context of airports and aviation safety, there was an interesting passage of 'no bullshit' inquisition by Senator Gallacher pointedly directed towards Harfwit in the brief half hour Airservices session...  

Here it is studiously recreated in pictures....  

Possibly misleading the Senate? - now where have I heard that before??   

Hint: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-142...ml#pid9309

Luv your work Senator Gallacher, the choc frog is in the mail...  

Shame of course that even if the Harfwit is proven to have mislead the Senate, the worst that he'll cop is being flogged by a soggy wet lettuce from the APH cafeteria...  

Hansard is already out: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Real world vs Fort Fumble fantasy land - 

The following is cribbed off social media, courtesy of Ben Wyndham AOPA Director and owner/operator of Airspeed Aviation :

Ben Wyndham

CASA's new Parts 119/121/135 Is going to destroy the small business sector of the Aviation industry. The Charter sector services all the small towns the big airlines don't.
Grab the latest issue of Australian Flying magazine for our view on new legislation delivering a massive increase in compliance costs that will wipe out a $1bn industry, decimate rural health and other public  services, all for zero improvement in safety.

IMO in one page BW nails down the real regulatory issues currently embuggering the small to medium size Charter and low capacity RPT operators...

Also note that on BW's LinkedIn page that there was an excellent comment, from another industry expert in his field, one Dan Parsons:

Dan Parsons - Airport Operations, Safety & Regulations Nerd

Hi Ben,

I can see in the article you have some concerns regarding the impact on Part 139 on small charter operators. Under the existing rules, there are obligations on aerodromes based on aircraft seating capacity regardless of whether RPT or charter. Under the current proposed amendments, CASA seems to moving away from treating RPT and Charter as the same thing. It looks to me like charter-only (eg mining) aerodromes in the future will be allowed to operate any sized aircraft with no specific aerodrome regulations.

I have to admit that I am probably on the other side of this argument to you (the aerodrome safety argument; not the general regulatory argument). I see distinctions between the charter and RPT, on safety grounds, as erroneous.

And I also don't see the obligations on the aerodrome operator (not the aircraft operator) as difficult. You just need someone on the ground to check the runway and surrounds before you land. CASA has never mandated a training standard or a syllabus or set licensing standards for this task. It just needs to meet the requirements of the aerodrome.

Anyway, as you continue to do the best for your sector, if you need any help on the 139 stuff, send me a message.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan of course once did a stint for the Big R-regulator CASA and therefore has a unique insight of how the aviation safety bureaucracy works...  

Hmm...wonder what Dan's take is on the bollocks HVH led ATSB YMEN DFO topcover report...   Ref: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-10-...ml#pid9374

Also as an addendum to the Ben Wyndham Oz Flying 'Short Final' piece, Sandy forwarded the following email correspondence for general consumption:

Dear Sarah and friends, Members of Parliament,


The website ’Oziflyer’ offers pilot licence training in the USA for Australians as an economic alternative in spite of the unfavourable exchange rate, travel, accommodation and licence conversion costs.

This is where we have arrived at with our unique, very expensive and highly prescriptive aviation regulatory regime, its an unworkable regime. To make matters worse our regulations have been migrated inappropriately to the criminal code, and framed as strict liability. 

The present accelerating decline of General Aviation (GA) can only be arrested if Parliament decides to reform our aviation administration by harmonising with the successful rules of the USA Federal Aviation Agency. The need for change is urgent because the latest tranche of CASA  rules are making GA unsustainable. 

In the last thirty years we have lost hundreds of flying schools, charter operators and maintenance businesses throughout Australia. However myself, and many experienced colleagues, consider that there is still sufficient talent remaining to reform GA. This will serve to grow jobs, businesses and services, particularly crucial to regional Australia, and reverse the trend to importing airline pilots. 

Changing to a modern US styled regulatory regime will not only enhance our competitiveness, but will increase safety of flight through the adoption of proven career pathways leading to having talented and experienced personnel in key positions. 

Today’s market oriented society works competitively, there has to be incentive, GA must be made more accessible if we wish to stem the losses and turn around towards growth. Integrating with the US, easily the world’s aviation leader, will also make parts manufacturing and technical training, as well as pilot training, far more attractive on the world stage, and turns our low dollar value into a big export advantage. 

Kind Regards,

Sandy 

   
From the Ozi Flyer website: 

Don't waste time and money on your way to become a pilot!

FAA Certified instructors will accompany you all the way from your preparations in Australia until you obtain your FAA license in the United States and then help you convert it to an Australian license (CASA), all in half of the expenses you spent in Australia and in one-tenth of the time. A lifetime experience of endless landscapes, sights, adventures with top of line facilities, aircraft's and instructors only possible in the US!

We will accompany you in every step of the the way until you achieve your flying goals - this is what we do!

& for a cost comparison:

US vs AUS

CASA CONVERSION REQUIREMENTS  

15.6 Overseas Licence Conversion – Examination Requirements Candidates holding an overseas licence (not examination credits) from a country that is an ICAO Contracting State must, in all cases hold an ARN, and satisfy the specified prerequisites and have their qualifications assessed by a Flight Crew Licensing before attempting to sit the relevant theory examinations:

• For PPL(A) conversion, they must: − Hold a valid PPL(A) from an ICAO Contracting State without any restrictions; and − Meet the requirements for issue of an Australian PPL(A) based on overseas licence and experience.
• For CPL(A) conversion examination they must: − Hold a valid CPL(A) or ATPL(A) from an ICAO Contracting State without any restrictions; and − Meet the requirements for issue of an Australian CPL(A) based on overseas licence and experience; and − Pass the CPLA Overseas Conversion (aeroplane) (COSA) and CPL Human Factors (CHUF) examinations. Notes 1 & 2 Flight Crew Licensing Manual Version 10.0 - July 2017 Civil Aviation Safety Authority D17/261845 Uncontrolled when printed Page 122 of 159
• Instrument Rating Examination (IREX), they must: − Hold a valid pilot licence from an ICAO Contracting State without any restrictions; and − Have been approved by FCL to sit IREX. Note 1: In accordance with CASR 61.275, CASA must be satisfied that the overseas flight crew licence and/or ratings are at least equivalent to the Australian licence with that aircraft category rating. D17/261845 Uncontrolled when printed Page 123 of 159 An instrument rating is optional for any other licence, in which case this may be completed either as part of their licence conversion process or added at a later date. Where an applicant requires an instrument rating, they are required to pass the CASA IREX exam followed by the instrument rating flight test. To complete the instrument rating flight test, the applicant must hold either:

• An Australian licence (PPL or higher); or
• A Certificate of Validation (CoV).
• For ATPL(A) conversion examination they must: − Hold a valid ATPL(A) from an ICAO Contracting State without any restrictions; and − Meet the requirements for issue of an Australian ATPL(A) based on overseas licence and experience; and − Pass the ATPL Human Factors (AHUF) exam and the ATPL Overseas conversion (AOSA) examination Notes 1 & 2 and − Pass the CASA Instrument Rating Examination (IREX), if not previously passed.

Note: A pass in the IREX examination and an instrument rating flight test are required before the issue of an ATPL(A). Flight Crew Licensing Manual Version 10.0 - July 2017 Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

As reported part of Dan Parsons’s argument regarding airport standards for charter aircraft might have validity for large capacity aircraft but could not possibly work for low capacity ad hoc charters. For at least thirty years there was a CASA thought bubble around that for any commercial flights the landing ground would need to meet strict criteria and that pilots should be checked on those airstrips before taking passengers. I kid you not. If that nonsensical notion has been laid to rest then that is a good thing. Example, a customer of mine wanted to view a vintage car on a farm, his paddock for landing on is described to me by phone by the owner, inspected by flyover in my Cessna 172, landed, concluded business and flew home.
However one glimmer of commonsense in an otherwise bleak regulatory landscape will no doubt be of academic interest only as most of General Aviation cannot survive the ever increasing stringencies from the out of control regulator bent on its path of bureaucratic perfection and to hell with free enterprise.

[Peetwo]

Real world vs Fort Fumble fantasy land - 

Also as an addendum to the Ben Wyndham Oz Flying 'Short Final' piece, Sandy forwarded the following email correspondence for general consumption:

Dear Sarah and friends, Members of Parliament,


The website ’Oziflyer’ offers pilot licence training in the USA for Australians as an economic alternative in spite of the unfavourable exchange rate, travel, accommodation and licence conversion costs.

This is where we have arrived at with our unique, very expensive and highly prescriptive aviation regulatory regime, its an unworkable regime. To make matters worse our regulations have been migrated inappropriately to the criminal code, and framed as strict liability. 

The present accelerating decline of General Aviation (GA) can only be arrested if Parliament decides to reform our aviation administration by harmonising with the successful rules of the USA Federal Aviation Agency. The need for change is urgent because the latest tranche of CASA  rules are making GA unsustainable. 

In the last thirty years we have lost hundreds of flying schools, charter operators and maintenance businesses throughout Australia. However myself, and many experienced colleagues, consider that there is still sufficient talent remaining to reform GA. This will serve to grow jobs, businesses and services, particularly crucial to regional Australia, and reverse the trend to importing airline pilots. 

Changing to a modern US styled regulatory regime will not only enhance our competitiveness, but will increase safety of flight through the adoption of proven career pathways leading to having talented and experienced personnel in key positions. 

Today’s market oriented society works competitively, there has to be incentive, GA must be made more accessible if we wish to stem the losses and turn around towards growth. Integrating with the US, easily the world’s aviation leader, will also make parts manufacturing and technical training, as well as pilot training, far more attractive on the world stage, and turns our low dollar value into a big export advantage. 

Kind Regards,

Sandy 

   
From the Ozi Flyer website: 

Don't waste time and money on your way to become a pilot!

FAA Certified instructors will accompany you all the way from your preparations in Australia until you obtain your FAA license in the United States and then help you convert it to an Australian license (CASA), all in half of the expenses you spent in Australia and in one-tenth of the time. A lifetime experience of endless landscapes, sights, adventures with top of line facilities, aircraft's and instructors only possible in the US!

We will accompany you in every step of the the way until you achieve your flying goals - this is what we do!

& for a cost comparison:

US vs AUS

CASA CONVERSION REQUIREMENTS  

15.6 Overseas Licence Conversion – Examination Requirements Candidates holding an overseas licence (not examination credits) from a country that is an ICAO Contracting State must, in all cases hold an ARN, and satisfy the specified prerequisites and have their qualifications assessed by a Flight Crew Licensing before attempting to sit the relevant theory examinations:

• For PPL(A) conversion, they must: − Hold a valid PPL(A) from an ICAO Contracting State without any restrictions; and − Meet the requirements for issue of an Australian PPL(A) based on overseas licence and experience.
• For CPL(A) conversion examination they must: − Hold a valid CPL(A) or ATPL(A) from an ICAO Contracting State without any restrictions; and − Meet the requirements for issue of an Australian CPL(A) based on overseas licence and experience; and − Pass the CPLA Overseas Conversion (aeroplane) (COSA) and CPL Human Factors (CHUF) examinations. Notes 1 & 2 Flight Crew Licensing Manual Version 10.0 - July 2017 Civil Aviation Safety Authority D17/261845 Uncontrolled when printed Page 122 of 159
• Instrument Rating Examination (IREX), they must: − Hold a valid pilot licence from an ICAO Contracting State without any restrictions; and − Have been approved by FCL to sit IREX. Note 1: In accordance with CASR 61.275, CASA must be satisfied that the overseas flight crew licence and/or ratings are at least equivalent to the Australian licence with that aircraft category rating. D17/261845 Uncontrolled when printed Page 123 of 159 An instrument rating is optional for any other licence, in which case this may be completed either as part of their licence conversion process or added at a later date. Where an applicant requires an instrument rating, they are required to pass the CASA IREX exam followed by the instrument rating flight test. To complete the instrument rating flight test, the applicant must hold either:

• An Australian licence (PPL or higher); or
• A Certificate of Validation (CoV).
• For ATPL(A) conversion examination they must: − Hold a valid ATPL(A) from an ICAO Contracting State without any restrictions; and − Meet the requirements for issue of an Australian ATPL(A) based on overseas licence and experience; and − Pass the ATPL Human Factors (AHUF) exam and the ATPL Overseas conversion (AOSA) examination Notes 1 & 2 and − Pass the CASA Instrument Rating Examination (IREX), if not previously passed.

Note: A pass in the IREX examination and an instrument rating flight test are required before the issue of an ATPL(A). Flight Crew Licensing Manual Version 10.0 - July 2017 Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Update to the above: Via the RAeS...

Ref: https://www.aerosociety.com/news/pilot-l...-shortage/

Pilot light - industry wakes up to aircrew shortage
As fears of airline pilot shortages become real, DAVID LEARMOUNT reports from the 2018 RAeS International Flight Crew Training Conference, held on 25-26 September.

After a succession of false alarms over about 20 years, the much-heralded shortage of airline pilots has finally arrived. 

As a result, airlines are being forced reluctantly into strategic recruitment planning – instead of tactical hiring – and approved training organisations (ATO) are simultaneously licking their lips and worrying about how to attract and retain enough high quality instructors. At the same time, in Europe, a major change in pilot training and flight crew licencing (FCL) philosophy is taking place.

If proof of the shortage were needed, here it is: Ryanair has begun a process of pilot and cabin crew union recognition after decades of hostility toward organised labour. It has also just announced the first of half-a-dozen contracts for pilot cadetship with ATOs across Europe, ensuring it has a supply of airline-ready copilots. The first is with Cork, Ireland-based Atlantic Flight Training Academy, which will produce 450 Ryanair-ready co-pilots over the next five years.

Training modernised


Latest intake of Ryanair pilots. The budget carrier is now actively recruiting for more aircrew after it was hit pilot shortage hit last year. (Ryanair) 

Meanwhile the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is preparing to oversee a modernisation of flight crew training philosophies that have been resistant to change ever since WW2. So it was not entirely a matter of coincidence that – at this year’s RAeS International Flight Crew Training Conference (IFCTC) in September – the theme was ‘A new era in pilot training and assessment’.

It turns out that the industry has finally – after 12 years of argument, study and a great deal of thought – agreed what it needs to do to modernise pilot training. All it has to do now is to make it happen.

When the first RAeS IFCTC happened in 2006, its theme – ‘Meeting tomorrow’s challenges’ – suggested a need for change had been recognised, and that the discussion on how it should be achieved should begin.

Simultaneously at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) ideas for a new training system and licence specifically intended to produce pilots with a complete skill-set for the right hand seat of an airliner were being examined. This was done on the basis that the old commercial pilot licence/instrument rating (CPL/IR), completed solo on light piston twins, was not producing crew suitable for the modern digital flight deck in high-performance jets, even if an additional training module providing a multi-crew co-operation and jet orientation course (MCC/JOC) was bolted on the end.

A change in philosophy


The demand for pilots over the next 20 years - as forecasted by Boeing. (Boeing)

The now-established Multi-crew Pilot Licence (MPL) was the result of those ICAO deliberations. Meanwhile, back at the 2006 IFCTC conference, delegates included many experienced, middle-aged pilots still reluctant to see changes in the training system that had served them well. Yet, out in the operating environment, loss of control in flight (LOC-I) had become established as the biggest killer accident category and debates raged about the proposed need for upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT), the effects of automation on piloting skills and the increasing use of simulation in ab-initio training.

Thus the talking-shop began. Today, with principles like competency-based training and assessment (CBTA) and evidence-based training (EBT) almost universally accepted, traditional training philosophies have been upended.

It is as a result of work co-ordinated through the RAeS, EASA and ICAO that necessary change is now sweeping into the training industry and the airlines.

It is pure coincidence that this is occurring at the same time as the arrival of a genuine pilot shortage but the need to simultaneously to increase training output considerably while make major changes to pilot training philosophy and instructional delivery is not going to make life easier.

In January this year EASA triggered its plan for phasing in a total change in pilot training philosophy over four years. By 31 January 2022 ‘at the latest’ all airline training departments and air transport operators in EASA countries must have implemented the changes, insists the Agency. By that date, successful pilot trainees will be graduating with their theoretical knowledge tested against a completely updated question bank.

The overall training philosophy changes entail moving away from traditional ‘silo learning and testing’ toward competency-based training and from rote learning toward scenario-based teaching that confers understanding, not just factual knowledge. A new EASA concentration on ‘Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes’ (KSA) embodies this philosophy change, the reference to ‘Attitude’ indicating the need to select students for their approach to the learning process, which may speak volumes about their personal suitability for the job.

EASA observed a couple of years ago: ‘Current teaching and learning tools are not sufficiently developed to encourage future pilots to use analytic and synthetic thinking or to challenge student pilots to enhance their decision-making skills, their problem-solving ability, and their level of understanding of assimilated knowledge.’

In the US, which does not have a system for training pilots ab-initio straight into an airline co-pilot’s job, retains a more traditional hours-based approach for preparing pilots for airline flying. Principles like CBTA, however, are gradually being embedded in their system. Meanwhile, reacting to evidential shortcomings in pilot performance, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also demands piecemeal changes like a revised training for stall recovery.

An interesting observation about subjects addressed at this year’s IFCTC is that nobody raised the issue of replacing pilots with automation, a matter that had been discussed in previous years. At a time of increasing demand for air travel, a need for improved – and possibly more expensive – pilot training, plus the prospect of higher flight crew pay as a response to the shortage of pilots, automation would seem to be a particularly attractive idea right now. Yet the subject was not raised.

Speeding up training


Can lower cost flight training devices help make training more affordable? (Multi Pilot Simulations)

The conference clearly accepted that quality pilots cannot be trained properly in a shorter time than they already are, thus it focused on proposals for making pilot training more efficient and effective. At present it is clearly not efficient, because the existing CPL/IR course churns out legally licensed airline pilots only about half of whom are good enough to be employed by a conscientious airline. That was a verdict delivered at the IFCTC last year by Ryanair’s head of flight training Capt Andy O’Shea, also the chairman of Europe’s Aircrew Training Policy Group (ATPG).

It seems that, although the new pilot training process will still begin with groundschool and basic theory, followed by familiar airborne routines like learning the effects of controls and discovering how to maintain straight and level flight in a simple aircraft, the task of today’s instructors is to engender within their students the ‘nine core behaviours’ pilots need to demonstrate to be judged competent – eventually – to receive a pilot licence. These are:

● Application of knowledge 
● Application of regulations and procedures
● Communication
● Aeroplane flight path management – Automation
● Aeroplane flight path management – Manual
● Leadership & teamwork
● Problem solving and decision-making
● Situational awareness and information management
● Workload management

This demonstrates a total shift from syllabus-based exercises and knowledge checks to an outcome-based assessment of whether student pilots can demonstrate that their newly-acquired knowledge and skills enable them to deliver the required performance. The knowledge and skills delivery now will be more flexible, with theory learning moving along in harmony with airborne experience plus exercises in FNPTs (flight and navigation procedure trainers).

It is the opposite philosophy to swotting all the theory furiously in one go, then taking a multiple-choice question examination and ticking the boxes.

This involves a massive change in instruction style, an issue that emerged loud and clear at the IFCTC this year. Instructors have to move from being the teacher and examiner to being a trainer, facilitator and assessor – more of a tutorial relationship. Above all there was agreement that training needs to be delivered individually to each student because they all have different backgrounds, educations and learning styles.

If this sounds like imposing an impossible instructor workload increase at a time of rapidly rising demand, CAE’s global leader training standards Capt David Owens – formerly of Airbus – argued that individual mentoring is actually efficient because, without close attention, students may scrape through several learning stages with insufficient understanding and, while this can go unnoticed at the time, the resulting poor performance will emerge later and demand costly and time-consuming additional training. However, with the necessary attention, Owens argued, a student should progress seamlessly through the course.

Selection


Are airlines getting offered the right sort of pilots from training schools? (British Airways) 

Another enormous improver of training efficiency, the conference heard, is high-quality student selection. Self-selected students who bypass the proffered selection process while waving dollars at an ATO can turn out to be totally unsuitable for the professional airline piloting role. The failures can result from the candidate’s unsuitable personality type, or physical and mental aptitude, or learning ability, or all three. An unsuitable student devours instructor time and ATO resources for no good purpose.

Lufthansa revealed that the training industry has observed a dramatic difference between success rates for those who do not undergo proper selection and those who pass extensive psychological testing for selection. Among the un-tested candidates, only 40% make seamless progress through training, 30% need additional training and 30% fail terminally. Among those who pass the selection process, 96% make normal progress through to graduation; 1% need additional training and 3% face training termination. So, selection equals massively improved efficiency.

Capt Philip Adrian, formerly of Boeing and now CEO of Multi-Pilot Simulations (MPS), told the conference that modern simulation resources are not being exploited to maximum advantage in the pilot training process. This, he says, is primarily because of unimaginative regulatory limitations on the training credits that could justifiably be gained by using them. He believes agencies like EASA and national aviation authorities need to carry out a root-and-branch review of the extensive capabilities of the latest fixed-base FNPT IIs and what they can do for pilots, because they have the potential to make the total training process more efficient and effective. The insistence on much of the training being carried out in full-motion full flight simulators that can cost five to ten times the price of a good FNPT II is unreasonable and unrealistic, he says. Ryanair’s O’Shea agrees with him, and his airline operates several MPS-supplied advanced FNPT IIs for additional training consolidation and testing, which he says has proved highly beneficial in raising standards.

Lufthansa’s Capt Stefan-Stilo Schmidt addressed the issue of ‘Finding the Right Stuff’ at a time when the need to attract far more young people into the profession will be necessary. First, he said, a pilot career needs to be more attractive and more accessible if the required numbers are to be found. That means attracting far more women and also quality candidates of either sex from low-income family backgrounds who would be intimidated by the cost of training.

There is, said Schmidt, a need for pilot career paths to be visible, and include the option for flexible working, especially if the distinctly under-exploited female pilot resource is to be effectively tapped, which he insisted it must be.

Search for the new generation


easyJet is making a concentrated effort to attract more female aircrew. (easyJet) 

In the next 20 years, Schmidt warned, Europe’s commercial air transport industry has to attract and retain 146,000 new pilots and, according to present statistics, that means the airlines will have to attract one million applications from which to select enough individuals who are the ‘Right Stuff’. To get that many young people to apply, according to Schmidt, the crucial factors are ‘career attractiveness and realistic financing for training’.

Meanwhile Ryanair’s O’Shea returned to the IFCTC this year with a solution to the inadequate quality of too many CPL/IR+MCC/JOC graduates. In his job as chair of the ATPG he worked with the training industry, EASA and the airlines to identify what was missing in those who had a licence but were not good enough, either at selection, or who got selected but then failed the airline type rating course.

The answer is the Airline Pilot Standard MCC (APS MCC). O’Shea describes it as an enhanced MCC/JOC which takes in EASA’s KSA philosophy, and consolidates knowledge, skills and understanding through scenario-based instruction. It adds about 20hr to the training pilots get but, says O’Shea, a successful APS graduate is more or less guaranteed to pass Ryanair’s 737 type rating and become a quality line pilot.

Capt Anna Kjaer Thorsøe, operations manager at Denmark’s Center Air Pilot Academy – famous for having produced the world’s first MPL graduates ten years ago – defined the choices airlines face when they opt for MPL or for CPL/IR plus APS MCC: ‘Both produce professional pilots. MPL produces airline pilots and requires high involvement from airlines, but there is no de-learning on joining the airline. APS MCC is less cumbersome for airlines to step on board. It also involves a reduced pilot assessment workload for the airlines, and more real time flight hours in a live IFR environment.’ Because of the lesser airline involvement, there may be some de-learning/re-learning of SOPs.

O’Shea says that there is still a long way to go. Since the IFCTC the ATPG has met the European Commission, presenting it with a long list of proposals that need to be met if the EU is serious about having an efficient future airline industry that can continue to meet demand. Just one of the proposals is the need to update, simplify and streamline FCL regulation.

David Learmount 

19 October 2018

Meanwhile in Dunceunda land the miniscule McDo'Naught continues to do naught on matters aeronautical...

---

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Real world vs Fort Fumble fantasy land - continued

The following is cribbed off social media, courtesy of Ben Wyndham AOPA Director and owner/operator of Airspeed Aviation :

Ben Wyndham

CASA's new Parts 119/121/135 Is going to destroy the small business sector of the Aviation industry. The Charter sector services all the small towns the big airlines don't.
Grab the latest issue of Australian Flying magazine for our view on new legislation delivering a massive increase in compliance costs that will wipe out a $1bn industry, decimate rural health and other public  services, all for zero improvement in safety.

IMO in one page BW nails down the real regulatory issues currently embuggering the small to medium size Charter and low capacity RPT operators...

Via Oz Flying yesterday:

Charter Industry harbours Grave Fears over New Rules
26 October 2018

Operators of small aeroplane charter companies have begun expressing concerns for their future as the industry comes to grips with new regulations that will see airline-like safety standards imposed on their businesses - ref: http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...harter-ops.

Charter companies fly ad-hoc operations tailored to specific customers and don't offer the regular public transport (RPT) services that are currently subject to increased levels of safety regulation.

CASRs Part 119 (Air Operator's Certificate - Commercial Air Transport) and 135 (Australian Air Transport Operations - Smaller Aeroplanes) are giving the charter industry the most concern, and several operators believe if the proposal are implemented as they are now, the industry is unlikely to be sustainable.

Some estimate that of the approximately 800 charter operators affected, as low as 100 would still be viable businesses if the regulations were adopted as they are.

Chief among the concerns is that the new rules will not improve safety, but will impose significant increases in costs and divert company resources away from the day-to-day operations of the company.

There is also a strong belief that imposing regulations designed for airlines and aircraft such as an Airbus A380 on smaller aircraft will remove the flexibility that defines the market charter companies service.

According to some operators, Parts 119 and 135 have eroded trust between the industry and the regulator, with many believing that CASA intends to impose the regulations regardless of industry input. Other charter advocates said that the proposals reveal a lack of technical competence in CASA.

"This is complete madness, confounded by absolute stupidity, locked up in a bureaucratic nightmare," one operator stated. "[It's] so very sad to see such a simple process locked up with the irresponsible and incompetent regulator."

Charter companies are also up in arms over CASA's reclassification of charter out of the definition of general aviation and into the passenger-carrying category. The effect has been to exclude small aeroplane charter operations from reformed regulation such as the new GA-specific maintenance regulations that will be based on the US FARs.

"The reason we have GA is [so] the same C172 can be a private aircraft and a charter aircraft and a survey aircraft and a mustering aircraft," another operator said. "For this versatility of use we need to have a consistent, uniform set of rules for registration, maintenance, and operation. We could refer to this as 'lateral consistency'.

"The same pilots and engineers use the same tools, qualifications and skills to fly everything from a Foxbat to U206 to a Chieftain to a B1900D. Our pilots and engineers need a consistent, uniform set of rules from the bottom of GA to the top - 'longditudinal consistency'.

"The term GA may not be useful to CASA, but it is who we are and what we do. In a heavily regulated sector, words do matter and if they re-define the words they will re-define us out of existence."

CASA closed consultation on both Part 119 and 135 on 2 September, and is targetting December this year for construction of the new rules.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...DJUclgM.99

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

The Cessna 172 refered to could also be used for training, freight, photography and spotting. A versatile aircraft, well know to myself since having, at different times, owned and worked five them. Of course training wouldn’t be a use nearly as common as in the past because CASA has wasted most of the flying schools with extreme and very expensive regulatory strictures of similar nature to those planned for charter operations.
But out of this story how do more unworkable rules being foisted onto a stressed GA charter industry square with the supposed increase of the industry satisfaction with CASA?
A survey paid for by the body to be assessed will always be suspect. In this case as one who took up the invitation to participate in 2015, but did not in 2018, the survey has no credibility, nil, none.

[Peetwo]

CASA still ducks the issue on properly adopting FARs -   

Via the Yaffa:

GA Maintenance: What will Change?
11 December 2018

CASA released their policy paper on general aviation maintenance last Friday and followed it up this week with seminars held at several locations around the country.

Known as CASR Part 43, the idea of the new regulation is to make it easier to maintain GA aircraft that are used in non-passenger-carrying operations. That covers largely training, airwork and private operations. Traditional GA tasks that do carry fare-paying passenger such as charter and joyflights have been reclassified into CASR Part 135, which is likely to have more stringent maintenance requirements when they are announced next year.

After consultation that revealed most people in GA prefered the new regulations to be based on Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) part 43 from the USA, CASA says it has shaped the new rules in accordance with FARs, with some differences.

According to a CASA spokesperson, Part 43 will not create a lot of change, but will remove complexity.

Among the major changes to aircraft maintenance under CASR Part 43 are:

• Registered Operators (RO) will be responsible for all aspects of maintenance
  
• Maintenance organisation approvals won't be needed
  
• Annual or progressive inspections will form a large part of airworthiness management
  
• Maintenance Release (Form 918) will be replaced with a Release to Service
  
• CASA Schedule 5 will be replaced with FAR 43 Appendix D
  
• Procedures Manual, quality systems and internal audits no longer required
  
• CASA approvals to vary location and scope of work no longer needed
  

CASA believes these measures will lower entry costs to the industry because approval fees will be phased out, there will be no need for major investment in facilities, no need to write a manual and no need for an independent quality system. Expansion costs are also expected to be lower because CASA won't be charging fees to expand the scope of the operation.

Part 43 will also see an Inspection Authorisation (IA) introduced in Australia. This is a new type of approval for an individual person with the purpose of conducting annual inspections, supervision of progressive inspection schedules and checking that major modifications and repairs conform with the regulations and published data.

The mandatory maintenance for aircraft under CASR Part 43 are expected to be:

• Airworthiness limitations (AWL) approved by the National Aviation Authority (NAA) at the country of manufacture
  
• Airworthiness Directives (AD)
  
• CASA directives
  
• Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness (ICA)
  
• Regulations
  

ICAs not mandated by CASA or the state-of-design NAA won't be mandatory under the proposed new policy.

However, Approved Maintenance Organisations (AMO) represented at seminars at Moorabbin and Bankstown raised several concerns about the new policy, including the fear that new-entry independent LAMEs will have a competitive advantage over existing companies that have invested in their approvals, the inability for CASR 43 companies to work on charter and joyflight aircraft and the concern that ROs will be able to give direction to LAMEs.

AMROBA Executive Director Ken Cannane said he thought the CASA presenters didn't properly address the issues raised during the seminars.

"The problem is the CASA presenters do not understand the minute details of the FARs to alleviate points raised," he told Australian Flying.

"They never raised the issue of the 'repairman certificate” for the experimental and LSA owner/operators.This will be very attractive to this sector.

"Basically, the independent LAME performing engine overhauls does not exist in the USA because they all have registered businesses because of liability responsibilities."

AMROBA is urging potential Part 135 operators to demand the adoption of FAR Part 135, Subpart J, which Cannane believes is most cost effective and harmonises with the FAR maintenance rules for GA and airwork.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...UX87ezb.99

   
MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Warped; or, just bent out of shape?

It seems to have been a week related to not only ‘timing’ but to time itself. The much vaunted, fabled process of true regulatory reform has gone from nought to zero in the space of thirty years; industry being no better off now than it was at the beginning of ‘reform’. Some would say we are worse off now because of it.  Except I note a couple of ‘new’ buzz word creeping into the vernacular. Used to be anything non airline was classed as General Aviation (GA). Now it seems we have a ‘new’ class’ – to wit; ‘Business Aviation’. Top end ‘charter’ flights, which ain’t; or, might be deemed ‘private operations’ or may even be classed as Regular Public Transport (RPT) - depending on the individual CASA ‘officer’s’ subjective interpretation of the ‘rules’. Watch carefully as the latest round of ‘reformed’ regulation wipes the ‘middle’ level operators off the board as medium weight ‘charter’ aircraft operations (business) become classified as ‘airline’ (Part 121) exponentially increasing operating, maintenance and compliance costs to point where the game ain’t worth the candle.

This angst over classification of operation was stitched up and put to bed decades ago by the grown up aviation authorities; like the CAA, FAA, NZ CAA. Yet, here we are, thirty years, hundreds of millions of dollars later and the best we can get is an unofficial buzz word ‘business aviation’. The fact that ‘business’ it is often classed as a ‘private’ operation becomes yet another example of the confused, politically obliging, money oriented, power through favour driven CASA mind set.  

Conversely, we can have a situation where a simple ‘joy flight’ may be considered as a ‘scheduled’ service. This fits in with the endless wrangle over ‘tourism’ packages, which include ‘land’ content and ‘fixed’ departure times to the same destination. A ‘package’ can be deemed ‘scheduled’ and the operator deeply involved in endless ‘correspondence with the ‘authority’. It all depends on subjective opinion of the local field office wallah. Typical for a day at an Australian operations office.

I have just completed a re-reading of two missives from the inestimable Paul D Phelan. Lots and lots of reading; one from 2000 another from 2014. Paul was a long way ahead of his time, streets ahead of the purblind, vainglorious politicians and light years ahead of the CASA. Think on it; 18 long, weary ago, Phelan had it ‘nailed’. Four short, equally weary years ago, the good Rev. Forsyth brought in a government requested report in response to the Aviation safety Regulation Review (ASSR). This was treated more like a revue – rather than a review: comments on the band and dancing girls were passed and quickly consigned to the ‘opinion’ closet. Such is the muddled state of piss poor regulation and idiots writing the rules.

Of course, this current round of political upheaval plays to the CASA hand. A law unto themselves, able to stare down commissions, inquiries and Senate recommendations with impunity – even with strong, stable government looking on. The current situation will see them safely free of scrutiny (not that there was ever very much) and oversight, at liberty to continue on their merry way towards destroying any part of industry they don’t like, through rules they wrote to suit themselves. Aye, when cat’s away the mice will play.

"Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war"

Toot – toot.

[thorn bird]

QUOTE:

Lead Balloon:


Thorn bird: Pages of regulations (1988 + 1998) plus civil aviation orders plus manuals of standards plus determinations, permissions, approvals and exemptions?

My estimate, based on a page count of the more substantial bits of the dog’s breakfast: Around 30,000 pages and growing.

I doubt whether anyone could reasonably be confident of knowing and understanding the entirety of the current Australian civil aviation regulatory regime. I would presume any claimant of that knowledge and understanding to be a psychopath or insane.


"...total of ALL material of a legislative or associated nature for Part 61 alone is now put at 6000+ pages..."


CASA LORE AND THE MYTH OF REFORM

At last count there were well over 10,000 pages of Australian aviation regulations, written by lawyers, for Lawyers, in the legalise language.

Lots of people from industry complained that the rules were indecipherable and inordinately complex.

CAsA has now embarked on a program to explain their rules in plain English so the people who don't speak legalise can understand them.

Which sort of begs the question, why were they not written in plain English in the first place?

CAsA maintains it's because of our Westminster system of government. Yet the Kiwi's managed it and I thought they had a very similar system as ours.

Seems like we took the best of British bureaucracy and refined it into a unique Australian art form.

It Cost almost half a billion dollars to write the rules they have enacted so far with more to follow, a lot more.

Are they going to expend a further half a billion dollars to explain Australian regulations so those that have to comply with them can understand them?

The sheer volume of the regulations makes it impossible to be in complete compliance. To comply you really need to understand the meaning and intent of the law, laws which are very opaque and ambiguous.

This means that at all times somewhere in Australia someone is unknowingly becoming a criminal because CAsA moved aviation law into the criminal code, one of the very few aviation regulators in the real world who have done so.

CAsA has morphed itself into an enforcement agency rather than a service provider and is currently employing a large number of enforcement officers, ex policemen and ex spooks to catch non-compliers. A very vexatious issue in the industry as the same entity that writes the law, enforces the law, an anathema to natural justice.

CAsA have a rather embarrassing record on the rare occasions they have dragged perceived miscreants before an actual real court. In an attempt to circumvent that, they reversed the tried and proven British convention of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to one of Strict Liability where your guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

Notwithstanding, courts can be a pain for CAsA. Rules of evidence apply, even though CAsA is a far from model litigant. With the public purse to draw on, and employing very expensive legal teams they can still quit often lose the argument.

When all else fails or seems likely to fail, they tend to use what they call “Administrative Action”.

Administrative Action is where the hierarchy of CAsA, the so called “Iron Ring” decide, independent of any scrutiny from a higher Authority, to suspend or cancel approvals, certificates or licences issued by them under the guise of an imminent risk to safety. Even the threat of this action has the affect of grounding an operation thus denying its revenue flow.

Aviation is an inordinately expensive industry to be involved in, cash flow is its lifeblood, very few in the industry can afford to remain grounded for very long.

CAsA can and do obfuscate, ignore and delay until their target becomes insolvent.

Access to real courts for small to medium operators is out of the question. Time is their enemy and legal costs.

They have the option of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, however evidential rules of a real court don’t apply there. Opinions, rumour and innuendo can be brought to bear with impunity.
A model litigant CAsA is not, even up to committing perjury, but even then they can often lose the argument. Generally though their victim goes broke before a case is even heard.

The huge volumes of regulations requires operators to produce massive volumes of company regulations to explain in plain English how their company and their employee's will comply with thousands of regulations written in a virtual foreign language.

Unfortunately many CAsA officers are not lawyers either and do not understand the legalise language. Their interpretation of the meaning of the law, even amongst themselves is variable and may not be the same interpretation as the industry

For this reason CAsA produces "Policies". Policies are used to explain in plain English what CAsA management considers the law to mean for selective regulations.

Unfortunately policies may not necessarily say what the law means.
The only way to determine exactly what the law means is by testing it in a court.

A court is a place where a panel of experts in the legalise language, called judges, determine what a law says in plain english.

Aviation is very complex and highly technical industry and though the panel of experts in the legalise language may determine what the law says, it needs other people to argue what the law actually means. These people are called lawyers.

Lawyers are people who have an understanding of legalise, but must be briefed by experts who understand technical matters.

Unfortunately not too many people in CAsA have a great understanding of technical matters, the real expertise lies with the industry, which may be a reason why they don't do so well in courts.

Unfortunately Lawyers cost a lot of money and not to many aviation operators can afford them, having spent all their money on proving to the regulator that they are at least capable of complying with the regulations that they don't understand or which defy logic. Also they have to employ a lot of unproductive people who's job it is to continually attempt to unravel what the regulations mean, amend the companies regulations in accordance with the constantly varying opinions of the ever changing parade of CAsA enforcement officers. Even then, after agreement is reached between CAsA officers and their industry counterparts that compliance is achieved, CAsA management, at any time, may countermand that, bringing an operation to a stop.

That is the sovereign risk facing anyone invested or contemplating investment in Aviation.

When regulations have a detrimental affect on an operator or unintended consequences become apparent, CAsA may issue exemptions to the law as opposed to amending the law. An expensive exercise and in reality only open to large operators, and the flawed law remains in force.

An exemption may be issued largely because big operators quite often have considerable political affiliations, which they might use to severely embarrass CAsA. Also CAsA dread being dragged before a panel of legalise language experts where it could become apparent that their regulations are in fact gobbledygook, which would really be extremely embarrassing.

Some would say the above is a product of my warped imagination. I'm prepared to accept that.

CAsA however will never admit their warped attempts at regulation are in any way gobbledygook nor fit for purpose, nor that they are morally corrupt.

That their complex amateur regulations have unnecessarily destroyed many viable businesses, stifled investment and thrown a lot of people onto the Dole queue, as well as costing the Australian taxpayer a lot of unnecessary wasteful expense.

CASR Part 61 relating to flight crew standards and its attendant Manual of Standards are a classic example of exactly why Australia has become a bit of an international joke. CAsA requires thousands of pages to enunciate what the Americans and New Zealand can do in less than a hundred and still achieve better safety outcomes than us.

CAsA maintain they regulate for safety, which must allegedly be their only consideration. That’s a noble ambition, but why does it take CAsA tens of thousands of pages of indecipherable gobbledygook, which heaps enormous compliance costs and complexity on industry, to achieve a safety record no better than the US or NZ with less than a thousand pages in total?

There has been much talk about high airfares in regional Australia.
When one compares our ticket price against the US for a comparable journey one could ponder how do they manage to do it so cheaply?

What I have never heard from any inquiry is what percentage the cost of compliance adds to a ticket price in Australia.

P7 - GOLD star and a Tim Tam Thorny - nicely done.

[thorn bird]

Here's an example of just how screwed up our reg's are.

91.060 Responsibility and authority of pilot in command

Australia – 351 words

(1) The operator of an aircraft must ensure that the following information is available to the pilot in command of the aircraft to enable the pilot in command to comply with subregulation (5):

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

© if the operator is required by these Regulations to have an operations manual — the operations manual;

(d) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have a dangerous goods manual — the dangerous goods manual.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the safety of the occupants of the aircraft, and any cargo on board, from the time the aircraft’s doors are closed before take-off until the time its doors are opened after landing.

(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the start, continuation, diversion (if any) and end of a flight by the aircraft, and for the operation and safety of the aircraft, from the moment the aircraft is ready to move until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight and its engine or engines are shut down.

(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft has final authority over:

(a) the aircraft while he or she is in command of it; and

(b) the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board the aircraft.

(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must discharge his or her responsibilities under subregulations (2) and (3) in compliance with the following:

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

© the operations manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command;

(d) the dangerous goods manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Note These Regulations also contain other requirements and offences that apply to the pilot in command of an aircraft.

(6) An offence against subregulation (1) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.

USA - 94 words

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

© Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

New Zealand - 96 words

91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command

Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of:

(1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and

(2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants.

Author's note

The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, and similar to the NZ version, doesn’t even address the subject matter in the heading. It devotes the first 91 words (highlighted in blue typeface) to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as "shelfware"; a GA pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight but whose carriage is mandatory. Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft's operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire. Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content and wording of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn't always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.

The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime and who is incurring the penalty, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than those of the pilot.

The Aussie version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring him (or her of course) to the shelfware that has already been listed once.

From this example it is clear that far from putting the "finishing touches" on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn't even started yet.

The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 says in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event (but only) if requested to do so.

Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and druggers.

In real life literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to any pilot in command, and they are spelt out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.

The new Australian regulations are rich in similar examples of amateurish regulatory framing

[Kharon]

Meanwhile - beneath the Iceberg.

Non aviation folk (Muggles - ) particularly in Australia are well accustomed to ‘over regulation’; so it’s no surprise when aviation starts screaming about the same. Most folk would just point to their industry ‘manuals’, shrug and say ‘you are not Robinson Crusoe mate; look at this pile of guff”. This is a fair call; however, the thing that those who ‘rubber stamp’ aviation law fail to understand is just how ‘badly’ formed the underpinning for those regulations is. I intend to bang on about this, so bail out now if not interested. I might add this opinion is a summary (thumb nail in tar) of many hours of BRB discussion and PAIN research. Are you sitting comfortably – then I’ll begin.

The two posts by TB (above) introduce a sketch of just two examples. Part 61 is an appalling load of clap-trap; the following comparison between Australia 91, the USA and NZ versions are an easily understood example of differences between ‘professional/collaborative/practical‘ law and the Australian ‘gobbledygook’ version. The how; and, the why  this is so is the subject topic.

TB – “The new Australian regulations are rich in similar examples of “amateurish regulatory framing.”

“Amateurish Regulatory Framing” jumps off the page and it is here, at the grass roots we must begin our journey in the not too plush offices of the Down Under Charter Kompany – trading as Duck Air (DA). The directors of DA have bought a new company – registered and badged up – nice and legal.(tick). Developed a business plan (tick) Thrown some money into a bank account (tick) Opened an office (tick) identified their aircraft (tick) now then: What’s next. Well, the will need a licence to operate – to wit – an Air Operators Certificate (AOC). To do this they must first engage a Chief Pilot (CP) A.K.A. the donkey on which the tail may be pinned. To this unfortunate falls the task of gaining the AOC; first step – produce a grandiosely titled ‘Exposition’ which is a flash expression for an Operation Manual (OM). Here begins a nightmare journey through the swamps and dark places of Sleepy Hollow.

Potted version – sincere apologies to the ‘experts’. ‘Tis but a twiddle to spark a light for the dim candle, not yet lit.

To begin with, nearly every CP on this planet has not ever had any ‘legal’ training, let alone completed a law degree. The CP may well be and most probably is an experienced pilot familiar with Air Law; and, in an operational sense have a good grasp of the requirements. So far, so good. So armed with quill, ink and candle the CP sits down to begin drafting ‘the Manual’. I’ll labour this point because it is important. It is not enough to simply state ‘we will comply with part XXX’. The ‘manual’ must define ‘how’ compliance will be achieved. Try an experiment – if you can bear it ( I have and the results were both hilarious and terrifying). Get half a dozen pilots to write a section of an OM related to a topic of choice – pick one. Turn ‘em loose, give ‘em a week, then collect every scrap of paper they’ve written – from the first to the last attempt. The pattern will be similar; the first attempt a sketch, the second will be ‘wordy’ using all manner of legalese, long winded and fanciful. The third, and possibly the last iteration will be so convoluted and confounded as to beggar imagination.

Therein, lays one of the many base line problems DUCK faces. It is from this basic problem that most of the current buggers muddle, we call ‘the Reg’s’ stems. Take part 61 as the quintessential example of an amateurs wet dream; their own inexperienced notions and attempts to impress writ large. This rule set has little bearing on providing safe, competent, properly trained pilots but did achieve the desired effect of ‘self promotion’. This, stand alone is not a good thing but when it hit the legal boys desks; like Topsy it grew to monster proportions. Then it all goes to yet another legal department to be drafted (as per instructions) into ‘law’. Then, like grass through a goose, the parliament approves the 'expert' thesis without question and the whole shemozzle is foisted onto the flying school industry. So the cycle begins the CP of DUCK now begins to expand the expansion; without any legal training to assist in actually understanding what the legal fraternity can do with one sentence, let alone thousands of pages. So the case against DUCK is aided and abetted by good intention, practical application and lay interpretation.

That is the problem aviation faces; the analysis of ‘why’ there must be a rule; followed by the manner in which that rule is presented; supporting reasoning for the rule being required and a clear understanding ‘how’ that rule is to be applied is lost in the thousands of pages produced to provide ‘safe prosecution’ – out of court, as far away from the rule of law as possible.

When you begin to understand the fundamental flaws in the system and the damage those flaws produce; perhaps the reason many cry out for real reform of CASA and the regulations will become clear (ish). An added bonus would be some form of accountability and control of the CASA; for at the moment there is none, there not even anyone in the parliament who will take the time; or even have enough knowledge of matters aeronautical to realise that their casual ‘rubber stamping’ of gobbledygook has almost destroyed an industry.


Toot – toot..